Rinamo et al. v. Sawyer Manufacturing: Universal Gripper Patent Action Dismissed
Three co-plaintiffs — Kim Rinamo, Janne Huovila, and Jorgen Johansson — filed suit against Sawyer Manufacturing Company in the Oklahoma Northern District Court alleging infringement of US10627013B2, a patent covering a universal gripper mechanism. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after 126 days, before Sawyer had filed an answer or moved for summary judgment.
Universal gripper patent suit exits Oklahoma court before first answer
On July 22, 2024, Kim Rinamo, Janne Huovila, and Jorgen Johansson filed a patent infringement action against Sawyer Manufacturing Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The complaint asserted US10627013B2, a patent directed to a universal gripper, against Sawyer Manufacturing, a company with a long-standing presence in the industrial manufacturing sector. The case was assigned docket number 4:24-cv-00347.
The action closed on November 25, 2024, when plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal was taken at a stage when Sawyer Manufacturing had not yet filed an answer to the complaint nor moved for summary judgment, satisfying the procedural prerequisite for unilateral dismissal under that rule. Critically, a dismissal without prejudice does not resolve the underlying infringement dispute on the merits — plaintiffs retain the right to refile.
The 126-day duration from filing to dismissal is consistent with pre-answer resolution, suggesting the parties may have engaged in early settlement discussions, licensing negotiations, or that plaintiffs reassessed their litigation strategy after filing. The public record does not disclose the specific reason for dismissal, and whether any private agreement was reached between the parties remains unknown. The without-prejudice designation keeps the patent’s enforceability against Sawyer Manufacturing an open question.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 126 days
126 days — resolved before defendant answered the complaint
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral dismissal before answer
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, Sawyer Manufacturing had not yet answered, giving plaintiffs the procedural right to exit the case unilaterally. No judicial approval was required, and no merits determination was made by the court.
No merits adjudicationThe with/without prejudice distinction matters significantly
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means the claims are not extinguished — plaintiffs may refile the same infringement allegations against Sawyer Manufacturing in a competent court, subject to applicable statutes of limitation. A dismissal ‘with prejudice,’ by contrast, would bar refiling permanently. The plaintiffs here expressly invoked the without-prejudice form. However, the public record is silent on whether any private agreement, licensing deal, or covenant not to sue accompanied this dismissal.
Refiling remains possibleSawyer Manufacturing exits without a merits win — but faces residual risk
Sawyer Manufacturing avoided a merits adjudication entirely, which may preserve certain defences for any future action. However, because the dismissal was without prejudice, the company cannot treat the litigation risk as permanently resolved. Sawyer has not obtained a finding of non-infringement or invalidity of US10627013B2, meaning the patent remains a potential enforcement tool in future proceedings.
No invalidity findingUS10627013B2 remains enforceable — litigation risk persists
For competitors and manufacturers operating in the universal gripper and mechanical clamping space, this outcome provides limited clarity. The patent was not invalidated, no claim construction was issued, and no infringement determination was made. Companies whose products may overlap with the claims of US10627013B2 should treat this case’s closure as a deferral, not a resolution, and consider monitoring the patent for future enforcement activity.
Patent still liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kim Rinamo | Individual | Co-inventors and patent holders of US10627013B2 — universal gripper technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Janne Huovila | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Jorgen Johansson | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Sawyer Manufacturing Company | Company | Sawyer Manufacturing Company — industrial manufacturing company based in OklahomaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Colleen Morris | Attorney | Counsel for Kim RinamoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott Helton | Attorney | Counsel for Kim RinamoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Helton Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Kim RinamoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert P Fitz-Patrick | Attorney | Counsel for Sawyer Manufacturing CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson | Law Firm | Representing Sawyer Manufacturing CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Oklahoma Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The voluntary dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) explicitly and confirms Sawyer Manufacturing had not yet answered. This procedural posture means the court made no determination on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The without-prejudice designation is legally significant: it preserves plaintiffs’ right to refile and prevents Sawyer from arguing res judicata in any subsequent action. The absence of a with-prejudice designation or any accompanying covenant not to sue leaves the enforcement landscape around US10627013B2 materially unchanged.
US10627013B2 — Universal Gripper Mechanical Clamping Technology
US10627013B2, filed under application number US16/091546, protects a universal gripper technology — a mechanical clamping or gripping system designed to engage with a range of workpiece geometries. Universal gripper patents typically cover adaptive jaw configurations, coupling mechanisms, or actuation systems that allow a single tool to interface with multiple object types, making them commercially significant across manufacturing, assembly, and tooling sectors. The patent is held jointly by the three named plaintiffs as co-inventors.
In the industrial tooling and manufacturing sector, universal gripper technology sits at the intersection of automation, assembly line tooling, and hand-tool engineering. A patent of this character could present risk to manufacturers of pipe wrenches, adjustable clamps, multi-jaw chucks, or robotic end-effectors that share design similarities with the claimed mechanism. Sawyer Manufacturing, known for welding and fabrication equipment including pipe stands and welding positioners, was identified as an alleged infringer — suggesting plaintiffs believed Sawyer’s product line overlapped with the patent’s claims. The patent’s continued validity makes FTO analysis advisable for any company in this space.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10627013B2?
Any manufacturer, OEM, or distributor of universal grippers, adjustable clamping tools, multi-jaw mechanisms, or related industrial tooling should assess their exposure to US10627013B2. The patent survived this litigation without any adverse finding, and the plaintiffs retain the right to refile. Product teams developing or commercialising gripping, clamping, or coupling tools — particularly where the mechanism adapts to variable workpiece geometries — face non-trivial infringement risk until a formal invalidity or non-infringement determination is obtained.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map their product architecture against the independent and dependent claims of US10627013B2 at speed. Eureka can identify claim language overlap, surface prior art that could support an IPR petition, and flag prosecution history estoppel that may limit the patent’s reach. Given the co-inventor ownership structure, Eureka can also help trace the full assignment and licensing history of this patent to identify all parties with enforcement standing.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10627013B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar universal gripper and mechanical tool patent cases in US district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving mechanical gripping and clamping technology filed in Oklahoma and comparable US district courts.
What this case signals for the industrial gripper IP landscape
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal without prejudice in a mechanical patent case typically signals strategic repositioning — not surrender.
Early dismissal does not neutralise the patent — monitor for refiling
US10627013B2 survived this litigation entirely intact. No claim construction, no invalidity ruling, and no non-infringement finding were issued. Any competitor or manufacturer in the universal gripper space should maintain active watch on this patent and its owners for renewed enforcement activity, whether in Oklahoma or another jurisdiction.
Pre-answer stage dismissals often reflect parallel negotiation tracks
Cases resolved before the defendant answers frequently indicate that licensing discussions, demand letters, or business negotiations ran alongside — or were prompted by — the litigation. While the public record discloses no agreement, the timing is consistent with a negotiated pause rather than an abandonment of the underlying IP position.
Rinamo v Sawyer — key questions answered
Kim Rinamo, Janne Huovila, and Jorgen Johansson filed a patent infringement suit against Sawyer Manufacturing Company in the Oklahoma Northern District Court asserting US10627013B2 (universal gripper). The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after 126 days under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before Sawyer filed an answer. No merits determination was made.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice means the infringement claims were dropped without any court ruling on their merits. US10627013B2 was not invalidated and no non-infringement finding was issued. The plaintiffs retain the right to refile the same infringement claims in the future, subject to applicable limitation periods. The patent remains fully enforceable.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not bar refiling. Plaintiffs may bring a new infringement action based on US10627013B2 against Sawyer Manufacturing in the Northern District of Oklahoma or another competent federal court, provided any applicable statute of limitations has not run. Sawyer cannot invoke res judicata to block a new action.
US10627013B2 covers a universal gripper mechanism — an adaptable clamping or gripping tool designed to interface with varied workpiece geometries. Sawyer Manufacturing, known for welding equipment and fabrication tools including pipe stands, was named as defendant, suggesting plaintiffs believed Sawyer’s product offerings overlapped with the patent’s claims. No claim construction or infringement finding was reached before dismissal.
The three co-plaintiffs — Kim Rinamo, Janne Huovila, and Jorgen Johansson — appear to be co-inventors and co-owners of US10627013B2. Under US patent law, all co-owners must typically join in an infringement suit for the court to exercise jurisdiction over all claims. This ownership structure means any future enforcement action would also require coordination among all three parties, adding complexity to both litigation strategy and licensing efforts.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.